Samenvatting boeken (Pigilucci, Okasha, Blackburn, DeGrazia, Garvey) + Lectures Philosophy of Science and Ethics

What is the use of the probability scale of knowledge?

Réponse:  The use of the probability scale is that it gives a clear visual representation of the scale of knowledge. It shows which methods are very certain (deduction, induction, abduction) and which are not (Folk knowledge, religious beliefs). It shows which methods are proven to work and which have never proved to generate knowledge which brings us closer to the truth.

Why is the axiomatic deductive method doomed to fail scientific enterprise?

Réponse:  An axiomatic deductive system is a syllogism which uses an axiom as one of its premises in order to get to a conclusion. An axiom is based on an assumption which is not 100% certain, so it is not based on deduction, but rather on induction. If the axiom is not certain then the entire reasoning which comes behind It is also weak(er). For example: Descartes was a believer in god while he also doubted everything, including his own senses. He said that God was good, and if God created humans, humans must also be good. So that would mean that his senses would not deceive him since they were good. The reasoning is sound, but the axiom it was based on (‘God exists, and he is good’) is not.

Why is Bruno Latour’s analysis of the scientific practice problematic for the philosophy of Karl Popper?

Réponse:  Popper believed that a scientific theory was only a good one if it could be falsified. However, Latour discovered when he was studying physicists while writing ‘Laboratory Life’ that many of their discoveries were wrong (didn’t fit in the scientific paradigm). He concluded that their reality was socially constructed. This does not fit with the philosophy of Karl Popper because scientific methods are often disregarded/ignored (‘falsified’) because they don’t fit within the scientific mainstream or what they wanted to observe. This can be seen as trying until they accidentally got it right—and that is not what Popper would have envisioned science to be.

Why is Pigliucci fiercely opposing pseudoscience?

Réponse:  Because pseudo sciences have proven not to work yet people still believe in them. Pseudo sciences (astrology, homeopathy, etc) still attract millions which also spend a lot of money on it. It does not make sense to believe in it. If you tested someone that claimed for example to be a dowser, their results wouldn’t be any better than those achieved by mere chance. Still, there are many supporters. Pigliucci is mainly annoyed by people who believe in pseudoscience—he goes to extreme lengths to explain why certain practices (in the chapters we read astrology, for example) are untrustworthy and not real sciences.  Pigliucci believes that pseudoscience belief is dangerous for society. For example, anti-vaccinaters which believe that vaccines cause autism. They endanger the community because they risk the spread of diseases like mump and polio.

Explain the problem of irrelevance.

Réponse:  Hume explains the problem of irrelevance. The explanation for a certain phenomenon should contain information which is relevant to the phenomenon’s occurrence. When this doesn’t happen, it makes the explanation unclear.  For example, there comes a man to the maternity ward, afraid he is pregnant because he forgot his birth control. The doctor can explain why he is not pregnant (he took his medicine, etc) but it is much easier to explain it by saying that he can’t become pregnant because he is a man. It is irrelevant to explain why he isn’t pregnant – because it physically impossible for a man to become pregnant.

Explain the problem of underdetermination.

Réponse:  The problem of underdetermination is that anti-realists find that scientists are too quickly content with the reason for a certain unobservable phenomenon that they find. Anti-realists think that there is a multitude of incompatible reasons for a certain phenomenon which are equally plausible. They think that scientific theories are underdetermined by the empirical data. The data can be accounted for alternative theories.

What is the problem of biological determination?

Réponse:  The problem of biological determination is that it is very hard to classify organisms in the ‘correct’ species. Darwin thought that the species groupings were arbitrary. However, it was discovered that species are reproductively isolated, meaning that they can only breed with specimens from their own species.

What is the difference between scientism and scientific naturalism?

Réponse:  Scientism is a form of science worship, that there is too much reliance on science. They believe that everything can be explained through science, however, science cannot discern between good or bad and other questions which are quintessentially philosophical.  Scientific naturalism is the belief that humans are a part of nature, not separate from it as once believed. Russel said that all knowledge should be attained through scientific methods. However, this makes philosophy abundant. Philosophers believe that phil has its own methods which leads to truths which science cannot find.  The difference is that in scientism, they believe that science is the only way to true knowledge, but within naturalism, they believe that there are multiple methods to get to the truth.